UrbanTerrorist (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 132: | Line 132: | ||
[[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]] is acting irrationally, and should recuse himself or herself from editing these pages for [[WP:COI]]. [[User:UrbanTerrorist|UrbanTerrorist]] ([[User talk:UrbanTerrorist|talk]]) 20:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC) |
[[User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz|Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]] is acting irrationally, and should recuse himself or herself from editing these pages for [[WP:COI]]. [[User:UrbanTerrorist|UrbanTerrorist]] ([[User talk:UrbanTerrorist|talk]]) 20:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
Mr Wolfowitz. My name is Janet Morris. I now have a Wikipedia editorship because of the prejudical and dismissive behavior of you and OrangeMike toward my work. I strongly suggest that you do not call any works published in the Heroes and Hell(TM) series 'reprints' unless you can prove it with citations from contracts, rights pages of published editions, or other acceptable criteria -- and I don't mean things like ISFDB, developed by people no more knowledgeable than you. My Heroes in Hell(TM) series has NEVER published a reprint. Despite what Silverberg did in the way he positioned his book and promoted it using the first serial attribution, we allowed the first serials for him and Benford. Subsequent to SIlverberg using his Hell stories in a novel of his, we did not allow any first serials. Since your insistence that Silverberg's Gilgamesh story is a reprint can dilute my intellectual property and the cohesion of my franchise, it is a serious matter. Please change the notation on Gilgamesh in the Outback to indicate that the publication in Asimov's magazine was a first serial, and if you have occasion to work on any more pages associated with my work, get your facts straight. Janet Morris ```` |
Revision as of 22:23, 11 August 2011
Novels: Short story / Sci-fi Stub‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Novels Start‑class Low‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Number of books / book order
There are actually 12 books in the series. The missing book is titled The Little Helliad by Janet and Chris Morris (1988 Baen Books ISBN 0-671-65366-0) and is written from the perspecive of Homer, who is confronted by Satan and forced to write an epic depicting Satan as a hero, much as Homer did for Achillies in the Iliad. Unlike most of the other books in the series, this novel is not a collection of short stories, but it does contain many characters previlant throughout the series including Alexander the Great, Tanya Burke, Welch, Nichols, Altos the Angel, Achilles, Lawrence of Arabia and of course, The Master of Lies himself, Satan. I also noticed that the order of the books in incorrect. I have the sequence as follows, despite conflicting publishing dates:
1. Heroes in Hell 2. Gates of Hell 3. Kings in Hell 4. Rebels in Hell 5. Crusaders in Hell 6. Legions in Hell 7. Angels in Hell 8. Masters in Hell 9. The Little Helliad 10. War in Hell 11. Prophets in Hell 12. Explorers in Hell
Good stuff. I added The Little Helliad and changed the order around to as above with one exception: Rebels has a publication date of 1986 and Kings has a publication date of 1987, so I left those in the order of publication. Does that make sense? Fairsing 17:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
New book pages
This is quite a respected series, relevant to a number of authors' careers. I propose creating individual (summary) pages of the individual books, linked-to from this main series page.
Among other things, CJ Cherryh's three Heroes In Hell books are the only ones in her bibliography that do not have their own pages, which is a visible gap in that bibliography.
Would there be any objections to creating a page for each book? Relevant linking, outside of the Cherryh biography, is from the various authors' biographies; most of the people who have contributed to volumes in this series are major, noteworthy, names with their own Wikipedia entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Jaywalker (talk • contribs) 22:39, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- I have no objection and in fact would welcome the creation of new articles for these books, particularly the three Cherryh novels. If you're new to Wikipedia, please have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels#Article structure first. Your help here would be greatly appreciated. —Bruce1eetalk 05:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) We couldn't create articles for every one of them. I suppose the most notable ones could. Marcus Qwertyus 06:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- I would argue that most or all of them would be notable, on the basis that: a) This is a highly prestigious series, with most of the individual authors being quite notable (and having their own pages), b) Many series of far less notability (such as the Starfist military-SF series) have short pages for each book. The information is already on this single large page; I'd essentially just be looking to break this page up into individual ones for each title, and listing the titles (as well as the stories in the series-naming first book) on this one page. --Luke Jaywalker (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Restructuring of existing page
As discussed above, I've created pages for each of the individual volumes in the series, except for the first, Heroes in Hell itself. I'm looking now to: a) create a separate page for that book, as with the others, leaving this page to cover the overall series, and then b) remove the short stories from 'Books in the Series' (since those are now listed under the individual books), leaving 'Books' as just the list of volumes. Thoughts/objections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Jaywalker (talk • contribs) 00:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for starting articles on all the book titles. I think removing the short story titles from this page, as I see you've already done, is fine – there's no need for that detail if it's covered in the individual books. —Bruce1eetalk 06:16, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Merge proposal
Many notable book series do not have articles for every book in the series. I've tagged each of the completely unreferenced sub-stubs for books in this series for merger to the series article as notability for the individual books has yet to be proven with reliable third-party sources for any of them. I do encourage any interested editor to improve these articles and, if notability for an individual volume can be proven, then it need not be merged. - Dravecky (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed, a merger here for many of the books in the series is appropriate due to a lack of reliable and in-depth coverage in independent, third-party sources. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 18:12, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Merge proposal
Do not merge. This is an important series, seminal to the development of the shared universe form, and was sometimes referenced or discussed as a series as a whole, without specific volumes being called out. Two of the stories sold first serial rights to magazines. Two volumes had Nebula award finalists. One volume had a Hugo award winner. One volume had a cover nominated for a Locus award. The first volume was on the Locus best of the year list. Some WP editor decided to apply more stringent standards to this book, such as possession of paper reviews, than to many other books: how many citations are verifiably linked to possession of the entire review in question for other books on WP? Proof of existing reviews in non-trivial sources should be adequate demonstration of notability; content of the reviews is largely immaterial. For completeness alone, with different authors in each volume, each volume needs its own page. Many other books, including every other book (but not these three) by CJ Cherry, whether important or not or reviewed or not, have their own pages on Wikipedia, many of these with lesser credentials than these books as part of this landmark series. The debate over this topic was vicious and unprofessional, perhaps biased. The new volume Lawyers in Hell demonstrates that this series and this form continue to be viable, no matter the author's choice of publishers or perhaps because this series was chosen by the editors as a candidate for a modern marketing approach not dependent on old-style publishing methodologies, and is noteworthy because it brings the series out of a twenty-year hiatus using alternative publishing. Each volume should have an overview and each story a synopsis, and this is too much text for a single page. Nor will any sensible person put time into expanding the Wikipedia volume pages until the debate over merge is settled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.2.177 (talk) 15:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- This is mostly irrelevant rubbish; the AFD discussion on the new volume show strong sentiment for a general merger. Virtually none of the individual book articles include any significant content beyond basic bibliographic data, easily merged into the main article. The contrary argument is just a mixture of peacockery and uncivil attacks on people who disagree, and most of its proponents seem to have been recruited for the dispute. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
- It was merged until individual books meet the WP:Books notability requirements (as discussed on the AfD page). "Peacockery" and "uncivil attacks" notwithstanding, you're a little late for the grandstanding. So far as I know, only one person was "recruited" and that was to clarify some questions the newer contributors had. If you're going to help clean up this article, then by all means. But let's remain civil on here; the AfD page got fairly hostile before a consensus was reached. Cordova829 (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Merged
If you didn't notice the ridiculous number of merge tags at the top of this page, I have merged many of the books which contained no references or had poorly references concerning notability. There was a great deal of consensus for a merge during the AfD discussion, and there continues to be during the merger discussion. This action was done in accordance with WP:BOLD. Objections to a merge were not grounded, either stemming from claims from NPOV editors (e.g. authors of the book series) that the series is notable for being in-universe with multiple authors, or simple claims of WP:ILIKEIT. Books not merged have suitable references and they will remain on their own pages (for now).
If you wish to contest the merger, please discuss as such here with evidence of notability ((WP:NBOOKS that any the merged pages should have their own page. I, JethrobotUser talk:I Jethrobot (note: not a bot!) 21:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Also, any clean-up efforts would be helpful. This merging has taken me a long time to complete. *sweat on brow* I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:26, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- You've done a great job, I, Jethrobot. Thanks for all your hard work. Cordova829 (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Tag-team promotional editing by COI editors and SPAs
There's a concerted effort to turn this article into a puff piece by inserted distorted, overblown, or just plain false claims. For example, C.J. Cherryh supposedly describes the series as a "seminal idea" influencing one of her own projects. This is phony; Cheeryh's actual statement, found at roughly the 5:30 mark in the first reference is "I've been part of Thieves' World and I've been part of Heroes in Hell, and I decided that I wanted to try one of these on my own, but that unlike the others I had the experience of seeing what happened when it went on to the point that they are now complicated beyond anybody's ability to figure out what's going on. And my notion was to follow one plot to its conclusion and stop". What's being put in the article is a hardly a fair representation of what Cherryh actually said, and it twists the meaning turning a mixed to negative comment into one that appears positive.
The "Reception" section includes a statement implying that the Encyclopedia of Fantasy implicitly or explictly asserted that the series was particularly important or significant; in fact, the volume simply provides a laundry list of such "shared world" franchises published by professional publishing houses. Moreover, the selection of examples is quite deceptive: three of the four examples, clearly the best-known ones, are not shared-world franchises at all, but major works where the author, after completing extensive solo work, has licensed a relatively small number of books comprising derivative works by other authors (and the MZBradley example is more a case of the author approving the commercial publication of fanfiction.) The Reception section is generally unbalanced and overly favorable, as well as cherry-picked; I'm particularly amused the by Orson Scott Card quote (which was originally misdated to 2001), since shortly after the analysis was published, the market for such series collapsed and almost all were cancelled or put on hiatus by their publishers).
Several editors of this article are repeatedly inserted the spurious claim that the (very notable) magazine Locus has nominated various installments of or stories in the series for its awards. This is, at best, grossly distorted. Locus gives awards based on its annual readers' poll, with its own rather elaborate and unusual voting system and nonstandard terminology. The magazine itself does not "nominate" anything. Instead, every participant in the poll "nominates" up to five works in every category and assigns them different numbers of points (most sources would call this "weighted voting"). When it publishes its results each year, it uses the term "votes" and "nominations" interchangeably. In 2008, it reported that there were 150 "nominations" for best science fiction novel and 188 "nominations" for best fantasy novel. Plainly this is not what Wikipedia refers to as "nomination" in the context of other awards, or how the term is commonly used, and is not an indication of significance. As I suggested independently here [1] some time ago, if any reference is to be made beyond the actual award winners, it should be to the poll results themselves.
Finally, for reasons that I cannot fathom, editors here are denying the plain facts that some of the best-known and best-received stories in the series were initially published in other outlets and reprinted in the anthologies themselves. One editor has explicitly changed the publishing history to state the series' most famous story, "Gilgamesh in the Outback," was "subsequently" reprinted by the science fiction magazine where it was actually first published. This is an outright lie, part of the mindless promotional editing that afflicts this article. The accurate publishing history is presented at the ISFDB [2], in various reference works (eg [3]), and even in Silverberg's authorized online bibliography [4]. Indeed, the story, like most Hugo-winning works, had itw own Wikipedia article [5], reporting that the story first appeared in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine until yesterday, when the publication data was altered by an IP/SPA [6], the the article itself was redirected without notice or discussion by an editor who acknowledges being an associate of the series' editor [7]. I'm particularly struck by the fact that the partisan editors here, while trying to meticulously document all sorts of trivial references to the series, are also working industriously to expunge any references to the fact that its best-known component work is part of Robert Silverberg's independently created "Gilgamesh" sequence, which began with a novel which has nothing to do with "Heroes in Hell" and continues with a novel which, although its parts were also reprinted in various series anthologies, was published outside the series without any conspicuous reference to it [8]. This is clearly not reasonable editing.
(A quick technical notes on dates, since someone will ask. The cover date on a magazine is its off-sale date, not the date on which it appears (as is the case for newspapers and most books). A monthly magazine with a July cover date would ordinarily appear in June or mid-to-late May. That's why those of you who have a scholarly interest in viewing naked pictures of Sarah Palin's daughter's erstwhile fiancee's sister will be able to pick up the September Playboy tomorrow at more efficient magazine outlets, even though it's just early August.) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
- xxxxxxxxxDividerxxxxxxxxxx
Sorry - easier to keep things separate this way because it's a long and complex answer.
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz should recuse himself from editing this page due to WP:COI rules. I'm not sure what his or her problem is, but his constant refusal to follow Wikipedia's rules is getting tiring.
There's a concerted effort to turn this article into a puff piece by inserted distorted, overblown, or just plain false claims. For example, C.J. Cherryh supposedly describes the series as a "seminal idea" influencing one of her own projects. This is phony; Cheeryh's actual statement, found at roughly the 5:30 mark in the first reference is "I've been part of Thieves' World and I've been part of Heroes in Hell, and I decided that I wanted to try one of these on my own, but that unlike the others I had the experience of seeing what happened when it went on to the point that they are now complicated beyond anybody's ability to figure out what's going on. And my notion was to follow one plot to its conclusion and stop". What's being put in the article is a hardly a fair representation of what Cherryh actually said, and it twists the meaning turning a mixed to negative comment into one that appears positive.
If you have an issue with the wording, edit the wording, don't wipe it.
The "Reception" section includes a statement implying that the Encyclopedia of Fantasy implicitly or explictly asserted that the series was particularly important or significant; in fact, the volume simply provides a laundry list of such "shared world" franchises published by professional publishing houses. Moreover, the selection of examples is quite deceptive: three of the four examples, clearly the best-known ones, are not shared-world franchises at all, but major works where the author, after completing extensive solo work, has licensed a relatively small number of books comprising derivative works by other authors (and the MZBradley example is more a case of the author approving the commercial publication of fanfiction.) The Reception section is generally unbalanced and overly favorable, as well as cherry-picked; I'm particularly amused the by Orson Scott Card quote (which was originally misdated to 2001), since shortly after the analysis was published, the market for such series collapsed and almost all were cancelled or put on hiatus by their publishers).
And before the "Edit Wars" broke out here I was going to expand that section with a bunch of information on "Shared Worlds" that I have, however I'm in the middle of getting a several books ready for publication, I'm trying to keep up with my usually 5000 words per day output, I'm going places to take photos for some of other books I'm working on, and unlike Hullaballoo Wolfowitz I can't hang around Wikipedia all day and play with edits.
Several editors of this article are repeatedly inserted the spurious claim that the (very notable) magazine Locus has nominated various installments of or stories in the series for its awards. This is, at best, grossly distorted. Locus gives awards based on its annual readers' poll, with its own rather elaborate and unusual voting system and nonstandard terminology. The magazine itself does not "nominate" anything. Instead, every participant in the poll "nominates" up to five works in every category and assigns them different numbers of points (most sources would call this "weighted voting"). When it publishes its results each year, it uses the term "votes" and "nominations" interchangeably. In 2008, it reported that there were 150 "nominations" for best science fiction novel and 188 "nominations" for best fantasy novel. Plainly this is not what Wikipedia refers to as "nomination" in the context of other awards, or how the term is commonly used, and is not an indication of significance. As I suggested independently here [9] some time ago, if any reference is to be made beyond the actual award winners, it should be to the poll results themselves.
This is one of the reasons that I say that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz should recuse himself or herself for WP:COI. If you read the Locus web page it uses the word "nomination" very clearly on the page. The reason for the usage is clear to everyone except Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. The readers of Locus Magazine (which do not include me) make the nominations, NOT THE MAGAZINE.
Finally, for reasons that I cannot fathom, editors here are denying the plain facts that some of the best-known and best-received stories in the series were initially published in other outlets and reprinted in the anthologies themselves. One editor has explicitly changed the publishing history to state the series' most famous story, "Gilgamesh in the Outback," was "subsequently" reprinted by the science fiction magazine where it was actually first published. This is an outright lie, part of the mindless promotional editing that afflicts this article. The accurate publishing history is presented at the ISFDB [10], in various reference works (eg [11]), and even in Silverberg's authorized online bibliography [12]. Indeed, the story, like most Hugo-winning works, had itw own Wikipedia article [13], reporting that the story first appeared in Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine until yesterday, when the publication data was altered by an IP/SPA [14], the the article itself was redirected without notice or discussion by an editor who acknowledges being an associate of the series' editor [15]. I'm particularly struck by the fact that the partisan editors here, while trying to meticulously document all sorts of trivial references to the series, are also working industriously to expunge any references to the fact that its best-known component work is part of Robert Silverberg's independently created "Gilgamesh" sequence, which began with a novel which has nothing to do with "Heroes in Hell" and continues with a novel which, although its parts were also reprinted in various series anthologies, was published outside the series without any conspicuous reference to it [16]. This is clearly not reasonable editing.
We had a discussion about merging ALL of the Heroes in Hell articles, and against my complaints most of them were merged. All I did was complete an incomplete merge. Gilgamesh in the Outback as a story would not exist without the Shared World it is a part of, just like the Utah Jazz wouldn't exist without the NBA. To claim otherwise is ludicrous, and another example of why Hullaballoo Wolfowitz should recuse himself or herself for WP:COI.
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz claims Silverberg's personal web page is accurate, but that anything Morris says is questionable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz should recuse himself or herself for WP:COI.
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz claims that ISFDB is accurate. If Hullaballoo Wolfowitz wishes I will explain to him how he can get an account there (I have one) and how he too can edit ISFDB entries. I would like to ask him how this makes ISFDB entries accurate?
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz claims that Concise Major 21st-Century Writers: A Selection of Sketches from Contemporary Authors by Tracey L. Matthews is accurate. What Hullaballoo Wolfowitz does not explain is how he has determined this to be the case. If he has decided that anything that is printed is accurate in that case he should accept Protocols of the Elders of Zion as accurate too.
Another point Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ignores is why Silverberg would have written the story without the anthology to publish it in. Because without the anthology there is no reason for Gilgamesh in the Outback to exist. The reason that Gilgamesh in the Outback and Newton Sleep were "best-known and best-received" were that they were published in more than one venue. As a professional writer I know the publicity game, something that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz won't have a clue about. If no one knows about a story it won't win a Hugo Award or Nebula Award. By being published in the magazines as well as in the anthologies Silverberg and Benford increased their chances of winning an award, and if you've got a damned good story that you think has a chance of winning, you've be a fool not to try to get it published in as many places as possible.
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's mention of To The Land of the Living is original research, and does not belong in Wikipedia. He could also make the claim that Silverberg's Gilgamesh in the Heroes in Hell series is a continuation of the same character from Gilgamesh the King. Again, that would be original research, which he is welcome to do, but it does not belong in Wikipedia.
(A quick technical notes on dates, since someone will ask. The cover date on a magazine is its off-sale date, not the date on which it appears (as is the case for newspapers and most books). A monthly magazine with a July cover date would ordinarily appear in June or mid-to-late May. That's why those of you who have a scholarly interest in viewing naked pictures of Sarah Palin's daughter's erstwhile fiancee's sister will be able to pick up the September Playboy tomorrow at more efficient magazine outlets, even though it's just early August.)
Well golly gee willikers! As a Canadian Publisher I never knew that! What a shock!
OK, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is clueless. He/she/it doesn't have anything to do with writing/publishing, and therefore has missed an important point. Reprints have to be cited.
- REPRINTS HAVE TO BE CITED
If either Newton Sleep or Gilgamesh in the Outback were printed elsewhere first, then the relevant Heroes in Hell anthologies which are Heroes in Hell for Newton Sleep and Rebels in Hell for Gilgamesh in the Outback would needed to have printed the permission and citation on the rights page (the page where the copyright information is printed). Seriously. And it happens that I still have my original copies of both books, and it is not there. I have a scanner here, and I could scan the rights pages, and upload them to my website if you wish to see them.
Now you can argue that it was missed in the originals, and it should be there in later editions. I challenge you to find an edition that has it there.
Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is acting irrationally, and should recuse himself or herself from editing these pages for WP:COI. UrbanTerrorist (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Mr Wolfowitz. My name is Janet Morris. I now have a Wikipedia editorship because of the prejudical and dismissive behavior of you and OrangeMike toward my work. I strongly suggest that you do not call any works published in the Heroes and Hell(TM) series 'reprints' unless you can prove it with citations from contracts, rights pages of published editions, or other acceptable criteria -- and I don't mean things like ISFDB, developed by people no more knowledgeable than you. My Heroes in Hell(TM) series has NEVER published a reprint. Despite what Silverberg did in the way he positioned his book and promoted it using the first serial attribution, we allowed the first serials for him and Benford. Subsequent to SIlverberg using his Hell stories in a novel of his, we did not allow any first serials. Since your insistence that Silverberg's Gilgamesh story is a reprint can dilute my intellectual property and the cohesion of my franchise, it is a serious matter. Please change the notation on Gilgamesh in the Outback to indicate that the publication in Asimov's magazine was a first serial, and if you have occasion to work on any more pages associated with my work, get your facts straight. Janet Morris ````